Research Paper on The Ethical Issue of Publishing The Pentagon Papers

In this paper, I will address whether or not it was ethical for A.M. Rosenthal, editor-in-chief of The New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers. On the one hand, it was ethical because the Pentagon Papers contained crucial information of national importance, the publication of the study saved the lives of countless soldiers by revealing information that made the American public reject the Vietnam War, and Rosenthal made attempts to allow the Nixon administration to publish the information. On the other hand, it was unethical because it put the lives of active American and allied troops and in danger, the publication of the report made the New York Times an accomplice in treason, and it put at risk the financial state of the New York Times, leading to the loss of employment of hundreds of staff and reporters. Ultimately, I will justify my decision as to the ethical nature of the action(s) taken by systematically processing them through the four steps of the Potter Box.

In order to define the situation, step one of the Potter Box requires identifying the central facts pertaining to the action that took place. In this case, A.M. Rosenthal, editor-in-chief of The New York Times decided to publish large sections of a government classified study: the “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force” which later came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. The study was commissioned by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara in June 1967 to document US military and government involvement in Vietnam. The study leaked when Daniel Ellsberg, a researcher who had been assigned to the study, came to oppose the Vietnam War and copied 7,000 pages of the study. After attempting to show the study to various congressmen, Ellsberg approached New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, who received copies of the study in March 1971. The New York Times went on to print “134 of the documents along with staff-written introductions and summaries”. This series of articles began on June 13, 1971, where the first ran with the headline, “Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement”. The New York Times was available in major cities across the United States as well as anywhere that could have access to the newspaper abroad, indicating that the circulation of information was widely available.

The following are facts to help contextualize the circumstances leading up to the action Rosenthal took. Rosenthal believed that the information held within the study was of national importance. However, experts such as Cardozo School of Law professor David Rudenstine “argue that some of the papers could indeed have compromised national security”. Due to the military draft, nearly every family in America was in some way affected by the state of the war. While there were doubts concerning the motives of the Nixon administration, there was no solid evidence of governmental corruption at that time. The Pentagon Papers was the first in a series of exposés, leading up to the Watergate Scandal that confirmed “the doubts the public harbored about the Federal Government”. Under Rosenthal’s leadership, “the Times decided to publish the condemning material, despite warnings from its lawyers that newspaper officials would be vulnerable to prosecution under the criminal espionage statutes”. Rosenthal knew about the risks involved with publishing the Pentagon Papers, but he ultimately disregarded the counsel he received.

For our first ethical rationale, we can conclude with certainty that the information within the study was of national importance. Additionally, the publication of the articles led to a shift in attitude that the American public held towards the Nixon administration, which helped to shorten the war. Attempts were made by Daniel Ellsberg to make the reports public through congressional means; however, Ellsberg was ignored, leading him to turn to the news media and Rosenthal who decided to publish the reports. For these three reasons, Rosenthal’s decision was ethical. For our the first of our unethical rationales, I conclude that the publication of the papers did in fact pose threats towards national security. However, the documents were screened before publication, to minimize harm. For our second rationale, Rosenthal knew that the publication of the leaked documents would be treasonous, however he chose to disregard the advice he received from New York Times lawyers. Publication could lead readers of the Times to consider the paper treasonous, which could have led to the financial ruin of the newspaper. This was unethical for Rosenthal to do because he had no way of knowing what the results of his decision could be and he risked countless reporters’ and employees’ jobs. For the above reasons, I also found compelling arguments to call A.M. Rosenthal’s decision unethical. Although the arguments presented here skew slightly towards the ethical side, with the introduction of my values, I found more concrete reasonings to base our decision on.

The second step of the Potter Box involves identifying those values I find important to consider when processing this particular case. I have chosen the values of honesty, knowledge, and loyalty. I selected honesty because a society relies on the honesty of its members in order to function. When dealing with issues of diplomacy or differing viewpoints, honesty can often times help bridge the gap in perspectives, so that both parties can understand one another. Honest intentions mean more than deceitful ones because a person with honest intentions genuinely believes in what they are pursuing. Knowledge is the second value I chose because the dissemination of knowledge is vital for any democracy to operate. Without an informed populace, the democratic process is stifled. However, knowledge can combat ignorance and lead us towards a better, more enlightened future for our world. Loyalty is the final value that I selected for this process. Loyalty is a learned behavior. There are those that might compare loyalty to love because love is engrained in us and it can be nurtured, and we as human beings learn to feel connections to others because of love. However, love is not a requirement for loyalty. Loyalty stems from a feeling of commitment that one feels towards a person or a group. Loyalty for a movement or cause can create vast changes, and because of this loyalty is my final selected value. While these values may seem to have little to do with one another, when framed within the moral theory that I will discuss in step 3 of the Potter Box, they can be used to determine the ethical nature of Rosenthal’s decision.

In the world of Kantian ethics, we are all expected to come about the same conclusions as to what is moral and immoral. Kant developed a universally applicable form of ethics founded upon reason. This form of ethics, deontology, requires that we perform actions out of a sense of duty, and these resulting actions will have moral worth. We can come about these objective moral values by applying the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is an “unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any … inclinations we may have to the contrary”. This objective means of measuring our actions does so through practical reason alone. Put simply, if we are faced with a moral dilemma, whatever we would want everyone to do in an ethical dilemma is what duty demands.

Deontology is an action-based moral theory, meaning that through deontology, we can objectively judge an action to be moral or not based on the action itself. Consequentialism tries to find justifications for actions after they have already taken place by looking at their results. However, because the categorical imperative limits morality to a person’s actions, we can assess whether Rosenthal made an ethical decision regardless of the outcome of his decision. As long as our values are reconcilable with this moral theory we have selected, we will be able to see the action taken as ethical or unethical. Taking into account the information Rosenthal had at the time, we must apply the categorical imperative to discern a universal law that is applicable to the case at hand.

In order to discern whether we can even find a universalizable maxim, it serves the argument to briefly delineate in order to discuss deontology’s unique dealing with news media. Deontology applies to Rosenthal’s actions not only because it is action based, but because awareness of higher truths is a key feature of this moral theory. Had Rosenthal not played a key role in the dissemination of classified information, another moral theory could be substituted in this case. However, because he not only was the key decision maker, but because the case involves a news publication, it is worthwhile to discuss how Kantian ethics play a role in journalism. In “Reading Your Own Front Page: How Kant Can Save Journalism in America,” Ryan P. Whitson argues that most national news outlets that have lost favor with the public did so because they took for granted “their role of providing checks and balances to power, politics, and harmful ideas”. Whitson goes on to admonish the American public for consuming biased news media and encourages them to “demand … new media efforts that make it their goal to return to values-based journalism”. With his decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, Rosenthal exemplifies this values-based journalism that Whitson says that we as a nation have forsaken. The press is the leverage that citizens of a democracy have against their elected officials. In order to maintain a balance of power, it is critical for a republic the size of the United States to have an informed populace. To that end, news publications should always hold knowledge of the truth in the highest regard and ensure that they strive to deliver factual information to their audience.

As recipients of the news, we want news publications that hold truth and the dissemination of knowledge as their key directives. In order to ensure that we receive adequate information from our news media, we can utilize our previously identified values in order to create a basis for what we should expect from news sources. News programs need to hold those in power accountable for their actions, not corroborate with corrupt politicians. In his article, “Transparency: An Assessment of the Kantian Roots of a Key Element in Media Ethics Practice,” Patrick Lee Plaisance describes how transparency is a concept that is often overlooked in the scope of Kant’s philosophy. Honesty is a key part of transparency and why his argument stands to defend pursuit of the truth. Plaisance says that with a few exceptions, “communication is based on the notion of honest exchange”. This is a key element of Kant’s moral theory because honesty serves to preserve accurate knowledge. From the perspective of honesty, Rosenthal’s decision complies with Kantian ethical standards. As previously discussed, because the preservation of knowledge is at stake, and we have chosen knowledge as one of our values, Rosenthal’s actions also are in line with Kantian ethics. We, however, have yet to discuss loyalty, our third chosen value. Loyalty is not directly related to Kantian ethical practices like our other two values. It can still be linked however, if we discuss our goal to find a universalizable law. Members of a society often place their trust within other members. This trust inevitably leads them to feel a sense loyalty for certain people, products, companies or corporations. Human beings value loyalty and would not like it if people behaved with a lack of loyalty toward them. This allows us to come up with the universal law that to behave with a lack of loyalty is immoral. Rosenthal’s actions showed loyalty to the American public, but he also showed a lack of loyalty towards the U.S. government. Rosenthal both complied and broke this value.

Taking into consideration the three values we defined and whether or not Rosenthal’s actions sinned against the laws of deontology, we can concur that from the perspective of at least two of our values, Rosenthal behaved in compliance. Rosenthal’s actions can be construed as ethical from Kant’s action-based moral theory.

Among those most by Rosenthal’s decision are the three stakeholder communities we identified for the Potter Box analysis. New York Times employees are directly affected by the decision because they are employed by the newspaper. If the decision to publish the articles led to the financial ruin of the business, employees would lose their jobs. For the employees the decision is unethical. The second stakeholder community is military veterans and their families. Rosenthal believed that due to the nature of the articles he was going to release, the fighting in Vietnam would cease, drastically reducing any unnecessary injuries and casualties suffered by those directly in combat. For this reason, the decision is ethical for the vast majority of Americans that had loved ones in the war. The third stakeholder community is news journalists. Journalists work under guidelines that they agree to follow. Rosenthal honored the primary role of a publication, which is to always supply its readers with the truth. From this perspective, the decision is ethical.

In conclusion, after processing this case through the Potter Box justification model, I maintain that it was ethical for A.M. Rosenthal to publish the Pentagon Papers in The New York Times. At the outset, compelling arguments could be made for both the ethical and unethical rationales I established. However, with the introduction of my values, they became a reference point to which we could begin to discern the ethical nature of Rosenthal’s decision. Deontology fits with the three values I selected, and because it does not take into account the aftermath of the action taken, Rosenthal is absolved from the potentially negative consequences of his decision. Here is where his decision became overwhelmingly ethical. However, we still took a look at three stakeholder communities who were going to have to live with the effects of Rosenthal’s choice. While New York Times employees had the most to lose, both military families and news journalists both benefited from Rosenthal’s action. While a different moral theory might produce drastically different results with this set of facts, my values paired with Kantian ethics results in my finding that Rosenthal’s decision is ethical.